Category: Speed limit
Why speed limits don’t make our highways safer
Speed limits are the most ignored law in America. Everyone knows it, everyone does it, and politicians pretend they don’t.
Yet despite near-universal noncompliance, speed limits keep trending upward. That sounds backward — but there’s a reason. And if we want safer, smarter roads, we need to be honest about how limits are set, why they fail, and what would actually fix them.
Speed limits aren’t broken because speed itself is dangerous. They’re broken because the system is disconnected from reality.
This isn’t about reckless driving. It’s about reality. America’s speed policy is built on outdated assumptions, inconsistent enforcement, and political fights that have little to do with safety. Dig into the data and one thing becomes clear: The current system isn’t working.
And no — an American Autobahn isn’t coming anytime soon.
The risk everyone ignores
Speed limits aren’t chosen on a whim. They’re usually based on the 85th percentile rule: Engineers measure how fast drivers already travel, and the speed that 85% stay under becomes the benchmark.
In theory, this reflects real-world behavior. In practice, when most drivers already exceed posted limits, every traffic study pushes numbers higher. It becomes a feedback loop: People speed, limits rise, people keep speeding. The result isn’t safer roads — it’s inconsistency, which is far more dangerous than speed alone.
Safety debates fixate on top speed, but the real danger is speed variability — the difference between how fast vehicles are moving relative to each other.
A road where some drivers do 55 mph and others do 80 mph is dangerous not because of the fastest car, but because of the difference. High variability leads to congestion, abrupt lane changes, tailgating, and road rage. Uniform speeds are far safer. America fails here because limits don’t match behavior, enforcement is sporadic, and real-world speeds vary wildly.
Unsafe at any speed
Some argue we should simply raise limits to match reality. But the data doesn’t support that.
Outdated limits do breed distrust, but raising limits without fixing enforcement, road design, and driver training only widens speed differences. There’s also a political ceiling: Higher limits face resistance that has little to do with safety.
Insurance companies have long resisted higher limits. Greater speeds can mean more severe crashes, higher payouts, and larger claims — so insurers lobby accordingly.
Then there’s Vision Zero and its “safety over speed” movement, which prioritizes lower limits, stricter enforcement, and speed cameras to reduce fatalities. Critics argue it oversimplifies the problem by blaming speed while ignoring poor infrastructure, distracted driving, and inconsistent enforcement. The result is a political stalemate divorced from what actually works.
Why we can’t drive 55 … or 85
The Autobahn always comes up in these debates, and for good reason. It works because everything aligns.
German driver training is rigorous, emphasizing lane discipline and high-speed control. Left lanes are strictly for passing. Roads are engineered for sustained speed. Enforcement is consistent and focused on the right behaviors — tailgating, lane blocking, and distraction.
You can’t copy just one piece of that system and expect the same result.
The national 55 mph limit of the 1970s was widely ignored and eventually repealed. Safety gains were modest and short-lived, while frustration and economic costs were substantial. Arbitrary limits without public trust don’t last.
RELATED: Mandatory speed limiters for all new cars — will American drivers stand for it?
Vintage Images/Getty Images
Brake check
Do speed limits actually work?
Yes — but only when they align with road design, real driving behavior, consistent enforcement, competent driver training, and low speed variability. Right now, America misses on nearly all counts.
Speed limits aren’t broken because speed itself is dangerous. They’re broken because the system is disconnected from reality. The solution isn’t simply raising or lowering numbers — it’s aligning engineering, enforcement, training, and expectations.
America’s biggest problem isn’t speed. It’s inconsistency. Until that changes, noncompliance will continue — and so will preventable crashes. Smarter speed policy won’t come from politics. It will come from practical engineering, and that would save more lives than any number posted on a roadside sign.
An ‘ankle bracelet’ for your car? AZ pushes new tech for serial speeders
Watch out, speed demons — the open road might be getting a little less free.
Arizona, known for its sun-soaked, sprawling highways, may soon become the first state to offer a high-tech alternative for habitual speeders: a “digital ankle bracelet” for your car.
With this new technology, Arizona may be taking the first step toward a future where cars themselves enforce the law.
Lawmakers are considering a bill that would allow drivers at risk of losing their licenses to keep their privileges by installing devices that actively prevent their vehicles from exceeding posted speed limits.
The proposal, spearheaded by Republican state Representative Quang Nguyen, would let drivers voluntarily equip their cars with speed-limiting technology. The system relies on a combination of GPS and cellular signals to determine the legal speed on any given road. Electronics connected to the car’s engine control unit then prevent the vehicle from exceeding that limit, no matter how hard the driver presses the accelerator.
Speed bump
For practical reasons, the technology does include an override mode that permits a temporary 10 mph boost up to three times per month, giving drivers a limited margin to react in emergencies or avoid accidents.
Nguyen estimates the devices would cost around $250 to install, with a daily operating fee of roughly $4. He has been working closely with companies that manufacture the technology, including Smart Start and LifeSafer, to ensure the system is effective and reliable. This makes me wonder if he owns a piece of the company or has stock in the company.
Under the bill, which Nguyen plans to formally introduce when the state legislature reconvenes in January, participation is optional — probably Nguyen’s earlier attempt to make it mandatory was a nonstarter.
Slow lane
Arizona is not alone in exploring this approach. Virginia, Washington State, and Washington, D.C., have already enacted similar laws. In Virginia, courts can require drivers with multiple speeding violations or reckless driving convictions to install electronic speed-limiting devices as an alternative to license suspension. Washington State has adopted a comparable program, giving judges discretion to mandate the technology for repeat offenders while monitoring compliance.
In Washington D.C., the program is more limited but aims to reduce repeat speeding among drivers with multiple moving violations. Meanwhile, Wisconsin is currently considering similar legislation.
These programs highlight a growing trend: Rather than grounding drivers entirely, some states are experimenting with technology as a way to enforce safe driving without taking away mobility. Proponents argue that these devices could prevent serious accidents while still allowing drivers to maintain employment, care for families, and perform other essential daily tasks. The technology also provides courts with a tangible tool to ensure compliance, rather than relying solely on citations and license suspensions.
RELATED: Spinning out at Discount Tire’s Treadwell test track
Discount Tire
Machine learning
However, critics remain cautious. Some transportation and safety experts question whether the technology is advanced enough to accurately detect all posted speed limits. GPS mapping errors, temporary speed changes in construction zones, or malfunctioning sensors could cause a car to slow unexpectedly or fail to limit speed when needed, creating new safety risks. Privacy advocates also worry about how these devices track and store location data, raising concerns about government overreach or potential misuse.
From a practical standpoint, the legislation raises fundamental questions about the balance between personal responsibility and technological enforcement. Supporters argue it offers a lifeline to drivers who repeatedly violate speed laws but are otherwise safe, while critics maintain that it may encourage riskier behavior by transferring accountability from the individual to the machine.
There’s also the question of fairness. Not all drivers have access to new technology or the financial resources to participate in a program that charges daily operating fees. While $4 per day may seem modest, over a month or a year, it could be prohibitive for some families, effectively limiting the program to more affluent drivers. Additionally, the optional nature of the program could create inconsistencies across jurisdictions, leaving some habitual offenders unmonitored while others are under constant technological supervision.
Whether the measure passes will depend not only on lawmakers’ assessment of safety and effectiveness but also on public perception. Speeding remains the most common moving violation in the United States, and habitual offenders are a persistent concern for states nationwide. With this new technology, Arizona may be taking the first step toward a future where cars themselves enforce the law — but whether that future is practical, safe, or desirable remains up for debate.
At the very least, it’s a bold experiment in road safety and personal responsibility, one that could reshape the way states think about controlling speed without grounding drivers entirely. As the legislature prepares to weigh the bill, motorists, safety experts, and privacy advocates alike will be watching closely, asking the same question: Can a car truly keep its driver out of trouble, or is this just another way to shift accountability from human judgment to technology?
